‘An employment tribunal ruled that 15,000 Bolt drivers were not self-employed contractors who ran their own businesses.’
The Guardian, 8th November 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Drivers working for Bolt, the ride-hailing app operator, are seeking to be classed as workers rather than self-employed contractors at an employment tribunal.’
The Guardian, 11th September 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A delivery rider who bit off a customer’s thumb continued working for Deliveroo, even after the account she was using at the time was suspended.’
BBC News, 2nd May 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Royal Mail is being sued for classifying delivery drivers as self-employed, enabling it to avoid paying sick pay and the minimum wage, in a case that mirrors a landmark gig economy legal ruling against Uber.’
The Guardian, 25th February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A fitter working for the furniture chain Sharps Bedrooms is taking legal action for better employment rights in a case that could open the door to improving conditions and pay for thousands of gig economy workers fitting kitchens, bathrooms and cupboards for big chains.’
The Guardian, 2nd January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Deliveroo riders do not have the right to collective negotiations on pay and conditions, the UK’s top court has ruled, in a blow to gig economy campaigners and the unions that represent them.’
The Guardian, 21st November 2023
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A self-employed consultant at a law firm fell within the definition of an employee for the purposes of claims under the Equality Act 2010, an employment tribunal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 13th February 2023
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Television presenter Eamonn Holmes is challenging a tribunal ruling that concluded he should be treated as an ITV employee for tax reasons when he presented This Morning.’
The Independent, 15th January 2023
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Are dental practices which service NHS General Dental Services Contracts liable for negligence by associate dentists whom they engage?’
Old Square Chambers, 4th February 2022
Source: oldsquare.co.uk
‘R. (on the application of Motherhood Plan) v HM Treasury [2021] EWCA Civ 1703. In a judgment handed down on 24 November 2021, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal concerning the lawfulness of the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (“the Scheme”) which was introduced by the Government in April 2020 during the first lockdown as part of its response to the Covid-19 pandemic.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th January 2022
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A law firm is seeking to launch a group action against Amazon over employee rights for delivery drivers.’
BBC News, 13th October 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A recent preliminary judgment by the High Court in London provides a stark reminder of the potential exposure for personal liability faced by partners in dental practices and the need for appropriate contractual protections to mitigate those risks.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th September 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In Hughes v Rattan [2021] EWHC 2032 (QB), the High Court was asked to answer the following question. Was the owner of a dental practice liable for the dental negligence of a self-employed dentist engaged to work in the practice? The claim arose from NHS care provided by three different associate dentists. The preliminary issue was whether the practice owner was liable by reason of: a) a non-delegable duty of care; or b) vicarious liability. The Court answered: “yes” and “yes”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th August 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Establishing an individual’s employment rights can feel like a minefield, with varying degrees of obligations on the employer depending on the employment status. Earlier this year the Supreme Court upheld earlier decisions in the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal that Uber drivers are “workers” of Uber for the purposes of employment rights, and not, as Uber argued, self-employed contractors each operating their own minicab business.
Mills & Reeve, 14th June 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘Alasdair Henderson of 1 Crown Office Row joins Rosalind English to discuss the recent ruling by the UK Supreme Court that drivers whose work is arranged through Uber’s smartphone app work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the protections afforded by employment law, such as minimum wage and paid holiday leave.’
Law Pod UK, 7th April 2021
Source: audioboom.com
‘If we had to pick one among the many enlightening statements from the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in Uber, it would be this. It perfectly captures both the gist of the case at hand and the substance of the whole global debate on platform work. From the outset, the narrative driven by platforms was based on the notion that they were something entirely new in our societies. They were introducing entirely novel work models, made possible by technology, which could not be subject to the same regulation that traditional businesses had to observe. Their business model was not compatible with existing labour protection systems, and they would be instead the best positioned to determine which kind of protection they could grant to workers (only – they would not call them “workers”, but “drivers”, “partners”, “taskers”, “riders”, etc.).’
UK Labour Law, 2nd March 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘R (The Motherhood Plan and Anor) v HM Treasury [2021] EWHC 309 (Admin). In a judgment handed down on 17 February 2021, the High Court has ruled that the Self Employment Income Support Scheme (“the Scheme”) introduced during the coronavirus pandemic does not indirectly discriminate against self-employed women who have taken a period of leave relating to maternity or pregnancy in the last three tax years.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th February 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In a landmark decision the Supreme Court has ruled that The Central London Employment Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal were correct to find that the Claimant Uber drivers were “workers”, rather than independent contractors. ‘Whether a contract is a ‘worker’s contract’ is a matter of statutory interpretation, not contractual interpretation. That involves taking a purposive approach which, in the employment context, is to protect those who are vulnerable as a result of their subordination to, and dependence upon, another person in relation to their work. In the case of Uber, the employment tribunal’s findings on the relative degree of control exercised by Uber and drivers respectively over the service provided to passengers justified its conclusion that the drivers were workers,’ according to the Supreme Court.’
Park Square Barristers, 24th February 2021
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024